TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Should Superheroes Intervene in Real-world Conflicts?

Go To

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#51: Jun 28th 2013 at 8:11:20 PM

When it's being argued whether or not super beings should interfere with war, it is almost always assumed that only one side has the super, that one side has a clearly superior one, or that in the event of a super battle, one neutralizes the other. Otherwise, there's no point. We'd be in the same situation we are now except il with persons of mass destruction instead of bombs.

Well, in a situation like the Marvel Universe where the goal is to stay close to reality, that's exactly what we want. If you want to have Captain America get involved in, say, a rebel uprising that is actually happening in Random Nationstan, but you don't want to disrespect the war effort by just having it be, "And then Cap punched out the Nationstan dictator and everyone went home for apple pie and American values!" then this superpower stalemate is perfect. Captain America fights Captain Nationstan, neither super actually being more powerful than the other and unhinging the war effort, allowing the war to mirror the real world progression of said war.

edited 28th Jun '13 8:12:20 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
HamburgerTime Since: Apr, 2010
#52: Jun 28th 2013 at 9:41:19 PM

[up] But then the question becomes, why stay close to reality at all?

Robbery Since: Jul, 2012
#53: Jun 28th 2013 at 9:53:36 PM

[up] Because they want to. They want to keep their fictional realities relatively close to actual reality because as such it's easier for them to tell the stories they want to tell. Obviously there are a number of routes they could take, from having their characters inhabit a world that bears NO resemblance to ours to having them exist in worlds where everything is the same except A, B, and C. DC and Marvel want their heroes to exist in a world that is as close to ours as they can make it, and they don't have their characters intervene in real world conflicts (at least not while those conflicts are going on) because to do so would just be too complicated.

I recall DC's longtime explanation for why their heroes didn't intervene in WWII was that Hitler possessed the Spear of Destiny, which apparently allowed him to control the minds of any super-human who came into it's range (it's range was apparently any territory he controlled). Tojo was supposed to have a similar artifact for the Pacific theatre. James Robinson, in The Golden Age, put a twist on that, saying that there was a super-human Nazi agent, code named Parsifal, who could temporarily nullify super human powers. The government then felt it would be too great a blow to morale to have a super hero die in combat, and so banned them from actively engaging the enemy on the front.

edited 28th Jun '13 9:53:48 PM by Robbery

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#54: Jun 28th 2013 at 9:58:32 PM

[up][up] Like [up] said, because they want to. This question defeats its own premise.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
HamburgerTime Since: Apr, 2010
#55: Jun 28th 2013 at 9:59:10 PM

"Because they want to" is a pretty weak reason, IMO, and stretches suspension of disbelief.

Watchtower Since: Jul, 2010
#56: Jun 28th 2013 at 9:59:42 PM

@top: Here's the thing with that: It's easy to accept an "evil empire" like Nazi Germany to have supervillains, and it's easy to accept a world superpower like the USSR to have supervillains. You don't really need "RAH RAH MURICA" to follow along, though given the time period it certainly helped. What you're asking for, basically, is for Osama Bin Laden to have a Standard Evil Organization Squad. How would you do that without resorting to "RAH RAH"?

edited 28th Jun '13 10:01:29 PM by Watchtower

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#57: Jun 28th 2013 at 10:01:38 PM

It has nothing to do with suspension of disbelief. It's a purely Doylist affair. They want to remain parallel to the real world with their universe. They don't want to branch off into a superhero-run dystopia. They're willing to do that with alternate universes, but they want their main universe to parallel ours. It's a purely stylistic decision.

The question this thread is founded on, then, is whether or not there is a way for superheroes to involve themselves in real-world conflicts without jeopardizing that stylistic decision, and the answer is that yes, there are ways to do that without the superheroes automatically resolving whatever conflict there is.

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
HamburgerTime Since: Apr, 2010
#58: Jun 28th 2013 at 10:08:01 PM

[up] I sometimes wonder if a superhero-run world would be a dystopia. Many writers portray it as such, but Superman, for instance, seems pretty damn hard to corrupt to me.

KingZeal Since: Oct, 2009
#59: Jun 28th 2013 at 10:09:31 PM

It's still one guy. Or a small number of people. It is impossible for them to have the resources of a nation, which is what's required in order to raise up another country. It takes huge amounts of money, material and people to do what the US did with Japan. An individual or group of individuals, no matter how powerful and well-intentioned, cannot accomplish that.

Not necessarily.

"I just punched out the ruler of Tyrannistan because he was selling children to drug lords and allowing his soldiers to rape the wives and daughters of the lower class. If one of the democratic states would like to come in and help this nation recover, that would be welcome. I'll be watching to make sure no insurrections destabilize the peace."

Bam. That doesn't solve every problem, but it's a great step.

And as for keeping superhero universes Like Reality, Unless Noted:

You can't. Especially not a shared universe that will be around for more than five years. If superheroes exist which are powerful enough to destabilize nations or stop natural disasters and stuff like that, trying to keep the world like real life is just stupid. The very fact that these characters exist means that there are problems which exist in real life which are either significantly reduced, or should not BE a problem.

edited 28th Jun '13 10:11:53 PM by KingZeal

HamburgerTime Since: Apr, 2010
#60: Jun 28th 2013 at 10:17:48 PM

[up] I remember that being a problem people had with the Marvel 9/11 tribute issue. Worse things than 9/11 happen in the MU every other week. Heck, some of the people who showed up to mourn do worse things than 9/11 every other week. I'm pretty sure DC has never actually stated whether 9/11 happened in their universe or not, which is probably for the best.

Tiamatty X-Men X-Pert from Now on Twitter Since: Jan, 2010 Relationship Status: Brony
#61: Jun 28th 2013 at 10:27:18 PM

[up][up] Which requires that one of those countries be willing to invest the vast amount of resources needed to promote that country's development. It would require a lot of money, and it would require a lot of boots on the ground - after all, there's going to be no shortage of groups taking advantage of the chaos caused by the coup.

If you want to know why it wouldn't work, you just need to look at Iraq. Deposing Hussein was the easy part - that was done in no time. Piece of cake. The decade after? That was what beat down the US. Or look at Afghanistan - over a decade later, and the Taliban are still fighting.

The problem is almost never just getting rid of the tyrant. It's what comes after that no one wants to deal with.

X-Men X-Pert, my blog where I talk about X-Men comics.
Noaqiyeum we must dissent (it/they) from across the gulf of space (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
we must dissent (it/they)
#62: Jun 29th 2013 at 5:40:22 PM

Many writers portray it as such, but Superman, for instance, seems pretty damn hard to corrupt to me.

Superman's situation seems like Carrot Ironfoundersson's to me.

ERROR: The current state of the world is unacceptable. Save anyway? YES/NO
Robbery Since: Jul, 2012
#63: Jun 29th 2013 at 6:24:37 PM

There was a single page Superman story published in Look Magazine in 1943 called "What if Superman Won the War?" by Seigel and Shuster, that had Superman charging into Germany and Russia to capture Hitler and Stalin and then bring them before the international court. I've heard as well of an old short story they did to explain why Superman, or at least Clark Kent, wasn't ever drafted.

If I remember right, didn't Marvel of the 1940's actually have their heroes fight in World War II? I know Capt.America #1 had Cap punching Hitler in the face before the US was actually at war with Germany, for which the folks at Marvel got death threats (and an assurance of protection from Mayor Laguardia).

As far as Superman running things, there is the frequently raised point (raised by Superman himself when the question has been posed to him) that any changes he forced upon the world were unlikely to outlast him. This is beside the point that he doesn't believe he should force his will upon others. The only way he could take over is by force, and succumbing to force makes people feel weak. When people feel weak, they tend to do stuff that isn't always in their best interests. Even if a government is relatively benevolent, if it rules through the threat of force without the consent of the governed, there are always going to be those who wish to see it toppled (actually, that seems to be true regardless of what kind of government you have, or how it maintains its authority).

edited 29th Jun '13 6:30:00 PM by Robbery

VampireBuddha Calendar enthusiast from Ireland (Wise, aged troper) Relationship Status: Complex: I'm real, they are imaginary
Calendar enthusiast
#64: Jun 30th 2013 at 2:45:03 AM

If I remember right, didn't Marvel of the 1940's actually have their heroes fight in World War II? I know Capt.America #1 had Cap punching Hitler in the face before the US was actually at war with Germany, for which the folks at Marvel got death threats (and an assurance of protection from Mayor Laguardia).

That was just the cover, it didn't happen in the actual comic.

Captain America is different, since he is ultimately no different to a highly trained soldier. Hence, while he can certainly have exciting adventures and make a real contribution, there's no way he could win the war on his own.

Ukrainian Red Cross
supergod Walking the Earth from the big city Since: Jun, 2012
Walking the Earth
#65: Jun 30th 2013 at 4:02:20 AM

To answer the original question, yes (not fighting, but protecting), but I don't want to read about it.

edited 30th Jun '13 4:03:07 AM by supergod

For we shall slay evil with logic...
harkko Since: Apr, 2010
#66: Jun 30th 2013 at 6:33:16 AM

Let's deconstruct Watchmen's for allowing its "heroes" to intervene real-world conflictsd:

-Limited series, with no connections to other continuities, which means that Alan Moore could allow the characters change the world

-Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons had creative freedom

-Aimed at adult demographics

edited 30th Jun '13 6:33:33 AM by harkko

GAP Formerly G.G. from Who Knows? Since: May, 2011 Relationship Status: In love with love
Formerly G.G.
#67: Jun 30th 2013 at 7:42:05 PM

Wasn't that the entire point Watchmen? I think there might had some series that did that already but I don't remember them.

"Fan, a Mega Man character."
NapoleonDeCheese Since: Oct, 2010
#68: Jun 30th 2013 at 8:02:33 PM

I sometimes wonder if a superhero-run world would be a dystopia. Many writers portray it as such, but Superman, for instance, seems pretty damn hard to corrupt to me.

Picture every current world leader with Superman's powers.

Think about it.

TobiasDrake (•̀⤙•́) (Edited uphill both ways) Relationship Status: Arm chopping is not a love language!
(•̀⤙•́)
#69: Jun 30th 2013 at 8:15:38 PM

Superman doesn't have to be corrupt. He just has to believe in something. There is a level of good abovewhich it becomes indistinguishable from evil. This has been explored in many Superman-related media. Off the top of my head, it appears in both the Injustice video game and the Justice Lords arc of the animated Justice League series.

Superman becoming a threat to the freedom and security of mankind would never happen because of Superman becoming "corrupted" in a sense that greed, ambition, lust for power, or any other common human failings have taken him. More often, it happens because his dedication to protect mankind from itself grows larger.

edited 30th Jun '13 8:15:54 PM by TobiasDrake

My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
TeChameleon Since: Jan, 2001
#70: Jul 1st 2013 at 5:12:03 PM

As far as superheroes intervening in real-world conflicts... no. They shouldn't. Quite apart from any moral or philosophical reasoning, the fact of the matter is, the workup period for a book is too long for any comic to be truly topical with up-to-the-minute real-world conflicts. There's really not much point in trying, at least in my opinion. Even the Marvel 9/11 tribute that someone mentioned didn't come out until December, and I'm pretty sure that was a serious rush job.

And as far as Superman, or any other sufficiently powerful hero, taking over... why? What good would it do? Just flat-out incorruptibility isn't honestly that great a recommendation. I mean, yeah, it'd be a nice change, but beyond that, it wouldn't actually help that much with the day-to-day running of a country or world.

vicarious vicarious from NC, USA Since: Feb, 2013
vicarious
#71: Jul 1st 2013 at 6:49:51 PM

Isn't the existence of Superheroes a slap in the face to law enforcement anyway? Especially if they insist on not being a part of it?

AtomJames I need a drink Since: Apr, 2010
I need a drink
#72: Jul 1st 2013 at 8:43:45 PM

See, the way I see it, the only way superheroes could co-exist in a world of law enforcement and geopolitical superpowers would be if they didnt get involved at all.

They could, of course, make a citizen's arrest but unless they had been brought in as consultants by the authorities they can't make an investigation. In my mind, this is where the difference between a superhero and a vigilante is made.

Like I've said before, it is my opinion that superheroes should only ever act to preserve life when the ability to do so is either considered impossible or compromised by normal people. A superhero acting during a natural disaster is fine. A superhero conducting a rescue mission where time is limited is fine. A superhero evacuating a warzone is fine.

A Hero is someone who risks life and limb to help someone. A SUPER-Hero therefore is someone who can take larger risks due to their abilities.

Theres sex and death and human grime in monochrome for one thin dime and at least the trains all run on time but they dont go anywhere.
Robbery Since: Jul, 2012
#73: Jul 1st 2013 at 9:30:39 PM

[up] I dunno...I don't think a super-hero would stand to the side and do nothing, even if an emergency was being "handled."

AtomJames I need a drink Since: Apr, 2010
I need a drink
#74: Jul 1st 2013 at 9:57:32 PM

Wasn't exactly the point I was making...

Theres sex and death and human grime in monochrome for one thin dime and at least the trains all run on time but they dont go anywhere.
RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#75: Jul 1st 2013 at 10:20:02 PM

Aren't most comics written several months before they're released in stores? That would make including a real world conflict a little risky; you don't know how the conflict might change in the time between scripting and publishing. The dictator your superhero fights might be overthrown, the resistance group your superhero supports might cross the Moral Event Horizon, or maybe the whole conflict gets resolved peacefully, making your superhero look like a war monger.

edited 1st Jul '13 10:21:09 PM by RavenWilder


Total posts: 79
Top